Kismat Ali Khan v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

WPA 27304 of 2024 Kismat Ali Khan Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Rita Patra ...for the petitioner Mr. K. J. Yusuf Mr. Parikshit Goswami ...for the State Court No. 2 (265788) 29.11.2024 (AD 27) (S. Banerjee) Affidavit of service filed in court today is taken on record.

Ms. Patra, learned advocate, appears for the petitioner.

Mr. Goswami, learned State-counsel, led by Mr. K. J. Yusuf, learned State-counsel, appears for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

None appears for the respondent no. 4.

The land of the petitioner has been acquired by the National Highways Authority and utilized for construction and/or extension of the relevant national highway. Compensation was awarded but, the quantum of compensation has not been accepted by the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the said Award for compensation, the petitioner has already invoked

the provisions under sub-Section (5) to Section 3G of The National Highways Act, 1956 at page 10 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2, being the designated Arbitrator under the said 1956 Act, has not taken any further step in the matter. Hence this writ petition.

Learned State-counsel Mr. Goswami has raised the point of maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that in view of operation of sub-Section (6) to Section 3G of The National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner should have taken recourse to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not the Writ Court.

After considering rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this court is of the view that on a plain and meaningful reading of sub-Section (5) and subSection (6) to Section 3G of The National Highways Act, 1956, the moment provisions under sub-Section (5) to Section 3G of The National Highways Act, 1956 has been invoked, the proceeding has to follow in consonance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Writ Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court.

It is pertinent to mention that this Court has also taken note of the fact that when the respondent no. 2, being the designated Arbitrator under the 1956 Act, is in seisin of the matter, it is the bounden and statutory duty of the respondent no. 2 to complete the arbitration reference as expeditiously as possible and to come to a logical conclusion in accordance with law.

Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

Accordingly, WPA 27304 of 2024 is held not to be maintainable and stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)